]]>New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at the Republican Jewish Coalition, Saturday, March 29, 2014, in Las Vegas. Several possible GOP presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas as Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino magnate, looks for a new favorite to help on the 2016 race for the White House.

MINNEAPOLIS — As the influence of money expands in the nation’s political sphere, 2014 is going down as the most expensive year in midterm elections — with the largest portions of dark money funneling through the shadows of big corporations, nonprofits, labor unions and super PACs.

Last year’s elections cost an estimated $3.7 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Although this total is not dramatically higher than recent elections, the biggest concerns center around three specific unknowns: where the money in politics is coming from; who it is going to; and how much of it is publicly disclosed.

For many American voters, that money trail is a tough one to follow.

In its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), Transparency International, a global civil society organization, states there is a “murky nexus” between all levels of money and politics in the U.S. government, which lags behind other developed countries in the world, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, New Zealand, Japan and Canada.

The CPI concludes that the 2014 midterm elections confirmed “the ever-increasing role that wealthy individuals, corporations, and organizations play in financing political campaigns. Much of this money [is] funneled through and to various groups that are not obligated to publically (sic) report the sources of their funding, thereby making it impossible for the public to know who is financing various campaigns.” Thus, the question arises of whether transparency of elections is important to democracy.

Disclosure and campaign finance laws vary from state to state. According to the CRP, the nearly $4 billion election cost last year only accounts for funds reported to the Federal Exchange Commission (FEC). The CRP projects that there is still an estimated $100 million in campaign funds that have gone undisclosed due to loopholes in transparency laws that allow those undisclosed funds to come in legally.

“There are some states that require a lot of detail in the disclosure of campaign contributions,” Dale Eisman, acting director of communications for the national advocacy organization Common Cause, told MintPress News. “There are others that require disclosure that don’t necessarily audit the records to see that they’re getting accurate information, and then there are some that don’t require much disclosure at all.”

The loopholes in disclosure laws exist primarily in the form of independent expenditures for political advertisements purchased by social welfare nonprofit groups, which are exempt from donor disclosure rules. Tax coded 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits have become pathways for dark money transfers, in which super PACs will sometimes report a nonprofit group as their donor, while the nonprofit’s donors remain a secret.

“These are people who have formed a nonprofit organization and contributed money to it,“ said Eisman. “So while you have an organization name on that money, you wouldn’t really know who provided it.”

An estimated $25 million was spent on political television ads in the 2014 state-level elections through independent expenditures by secret nonprofit groups. That’s nearly double the amount spent in 2010, according to a Center for Public Integrity data analysis. The political participation of these groups seems significant, in that 63 percent of the races in which they sponsored ads they had either supported a winning candidate or criticized one who lost.

But it’s not just disclosure exemptions and cleverly promoted television ads that have prompted public concern. Since the Supreme Court’sCitizens United decision in 2010, the unlimited contribution and outside spending amounts have prompted various advocacy groups and legislators to push for remodeling campaign finance and disclosure policies in their states.

“Most do not have great disclosure laws or conflict of interest laws,” Mansur Gidfar, communications director for anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told MintPress. “In a lot of cases, every situation around the laws that govern how money interacts with the political process is actually a lot worse at the state level than it is at the federal level.”

Twisted loopholes and the murky nexus

With the truth about dark money coming out on both the state and federal levels, some states are shining the spotlight on reform.

Minnesota state Rep. Ryan Winkler is preparing to introduce a bill to promote electoral transparency in the North Star State.

On the heels of the Citizens United decision, Winkler has worked on bills since 2011 to close loopholes, create more campaign oversight and accountability, and eliminate the need for third party donors. Although some changes have been enacted, provisions pertaining to closing disclosure loopholes were stripped in 2013 — loopholes he tried to close again in 2014 and will continue to fight to close this year.

Winkler’s major issue with the loopholes concerns how political communications and advertising are legally implemented without disclosure through slightly altered political language.

Under current law, regardless of how biased the endless amounts of political ads are in support of or are against a specific candidate, the source of funding for an ad does not have to be disclosed if the ad does not explicitly use the phrases “vote for” or “vote against.”

“You can spend an unlimited amount of money sending out mail in a legislator’s district saying that Legislator X … has done a terrible job for you,” Winkler told MintPress.

But despite any insinuations, the nonprofit organizations can claim their ads are educating voters on an issue, not politicking, as long as they don’t employ those “magic” words.

“We would like to change the law to clarify that if you are spending money targeting an individual state candidate in their area and it’s 60 days before an election, that’s not issue advocacy,” said Winkler. “That is trying to promote or defeat a candidate for office, and you should have to disclose who paid for the ad.”

Susan Tucker, the executive director for the Minnesota chapter of the League of Women Voters, told MintPress that the local group is an advocate for Winkler’s bill.

“We were seeking reforms in really simple disclosure — that the electioneering communication would be disclosed,” Tucker said. “We weren’t even asking in terms of limitations of money being spent at this point, but just really about disclosure.”

Although seemingly in opposition to Citizens United, Winkler’s 2013 bill actually increased the contribution limits that candidates in Minnesota could accept and spend “in order to try to balance some of the big money that’s spent from outside parties,” Winkler said.

Winkler’s proposal for his transparency bill last year received opposition from two large state groups. Both Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the largest anti-abortion group in the state, and the Minnesota chapter for the National Rifle Association (NRA), did not support the spending and donor disclosure requirements of outside groups and nonprofits.

While the bill was not related to either gun rights or abortion, both groups are nonprofits with social and political lobbying purposes. The NRA provides services to gun owners and lobbies for pro-gun legislation, while the MCCL supports pro-life enactments and has a 501(c)(4) general fund, as well as a state and federal PAC.

Winkler says that as election season rolled around, many rural politicians didn’t want the opposition of the lobbying NRA or pro-life groups, which ultimately caused the bill’s shutdown.

But that isn’t stopping his push for stronger disclosure requirements. Winkler also anticipates introducing legislation similar to the “Shareholders United” act proposed by Maryland Sen. Jamie Raskin. The act requires corporations to obtain approval from shareholders before spending money in politics. It also requires any spending to be disclosed online.

The Maryland Chamber of Commerce has come out against the proposal, claiming that gathering all shareholder input is an “unworkable scenario” and asserting that the act’s requirements have the effect of suppressing the First Amendment rights of corporations, as allowed by Citizens United.

The opposition from the Maryland Chamber may not come as a shock. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce oversees the state chambers, and according to “The Dark Side Of Citizens United,” a report by Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was one of largest dark money spenders in 2014, spending $31.8 million as of Oct. 24. It was the highest spender in 80 percent of the contests it tried to influence.

With dark spending exchanged on all levels of elections, Tucker confirms, “There’s a reluctance to lift the veil on where the money is coming from.”

A revolutionary step forward

Yet that veil has been lifted in Tallahassee, Florida.

A referendum imposing stronger ethics for transparency, implementing rules against conflicts of interest, stopping political bribery, and limiting campaign contributions to city candidates was backed by 67 percent of city voters in November.

“This is the first anti-corruption act passed using our model,” Gidfar, of Represent.Us, said of the tailored legislation generated by Represent.Us and the Tallahassee group Citizens For Ethics Reform.

By taking cues from the Federal Election Campaign Act, Represent.Us creates state and local versions that protect those localities from “the kind of ‘pay-to-play’ corrupt cronyism that we see on a huge scale at the national level,” Gidfar said.

Although the referendum was victorious in Tallahassee, clouds rolled in from bipartisan opposition.

“The city actually sued us to try to keep our referendum off the ballot,” said Gidfar. “The people that are least happy about what we’re doing tend to be local politicians, and that’s not really limited by party.”

Despite the vast amount of bipartisan opposition to disclosure, Gidfar has also seen support from a broad range of groups.

“What we see in practice is that regardless of political affiliation, huge majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents support the provisions of the anti-corruption act,“ Gidfar said.

Represent.Us plans to work with 12 other cities over the next year to establish similar anti-corruption laws and empower voters — in as much of a non-partisan way as possible.

“I think that’s kind of a misconception — that this is a party-lined issue and that Republicans are kind of pouring money into politics and Democrats are against it,“ said Gidfar.

The FEC House and Senate campaign finance reports show that the disclosed receipts (contributions, loans and total election revenue) and disbursements (spending totals) for the Republican and Democratic parties were nearly equivalent in 2014.

Contributions to the Republican party comprised about 56 percent of total receipts in the House elections and about 52 percent of total receipts in the Senate. Democratic Party contributions amounted to about 43 percent in the House and 47 percent in the Senate.

Combined, the Republican and Democratic parties reigned in $1,645,709,962 billion.

The disbursement breakdown almost mirrors the receipt percentages for both parties in each race. Though the total disclosed funds involved with the Republican Party are slightly higher, it’s apparent that both parties are raising and spending nearly equal amounts of money.

Meanwhile, when it comes to seeking reform, it’s a game that’s been going on too long.

“When you try and challenge the status quo and make it possible for people who aren’t playing the game to get involved in politics and win elected office, that’s sort of a threat to whoever happens to [currently] be in office,” Gidfar said.

2015: Will the web continue to tangle?

In 2013, the IRS proposed a draft of new guidelines for groups pouring dark money into politics, specifically targeting the contribution from and electioneering of tax and disclosure exempt social welfare nonprofit organizations.

“The proposed regulations provide that candidate-related political activity
includes activities that the IRS has traditionally considered to be political
campaign activity per se, such as contributions to candidates and
communications that expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate.

“The proposed regulations also would treat as candidate-related political activity
certain activities that, because they occur close in time to an election or are
election-related, have a greater potential to affect the outcome of an election … such activities instead would be subject to a more definitive rule.”

After the original draft’s onset, sharp criticism drawn by right- and left-wing politicians caused the guidelines to be withdrawn. The IRS may not be ready to propose the updated revisions to these guidelines until later this year, potentially delaying any establishment of needed changes until after the 2016 presidential elections.

Changes that states make on a local level may have to be the next step forward. But according to a state-by-state grading by The National Institute of Money In State Politics of independent expenditure disclosure requirements, nearly half of the country had failing scores.

The grading took place in September and does not take into account the Tallahassee referendum. Yet it reports that of the 24 states with the lowest grades, many were due to two common disclosure flaws: Either the state did not require any electioneering communications disclosure at all, or the state’s disclosure law was was poorly executed and inaccurate in its data collection.

However, the report highlights an overall increase of disclosure throughout the states — with 31 states now requiring more financial transparency, up from 25 in 2013.

Is it possible there may be some light at the end of the tunnel?

“There’s a whole list of groups or individuals that provide dark money,” Common Cause’s Eisman said. “People or corporations … the public ought to know who is spending money to influence our votes.”

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/campaign-finance-disclosure-laws-states-need-shine-light-dark-money-politics/200927/feed/3Housing First: A Different Approach To End Homelessnesshttps://www.mintpressnews.com/housing-first-different-approach-end-homelessness/189505/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/housing-first-different-approach-end-homelessness/189505/#commentsThu, 24 Apr 2014 10:00:31 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=189505The key to effectively reducing homelessness may be just that: a key.

Ion Gardescu lifts up his tent to shake debris out of it as he breaks camp at the homeless tent camp named “Nickelsville” in south Seattle. (AP/Ted S. Warren)

A key difference between maintaining homelessness and ending it in Washington state’s King County is a plan to offer the homeless keys to their own homes and access to support services.

“The American people have grown accustomed to modern-day homelessness,” said Michael Stoops, director of community organization for the National Coalition for the Homeless. “Unless we attack the systemic cause of homelessness, which is the lack of affordable housing, we will always have homelessness.”

King County, which includes the city of Seattle, is home to an estimated 3,000 homeless people. This population faces poverty, domestic abuse, disabilities and a lack of physical and mental health services.

When shelters reach their legal maximum capacities, they are forced to turn people away. This may be part of the reason why only about half of the county’s homeless stay in shelters, while the others live in their cars, abandoned buildings and parks.

Seattle and King County recently received $22.7 million in federal funding for homeless assistance. This funding will help support 70 community-based projects focused on the county’s “housing first” mission to provide housing and support services to individuals and families who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness.

In 2005, the county’s council unanimously approved the adoption of “A Roof Over Every Bed,” a unique 10-year plan to end homelessness. With the involvement of the King County Department of Human Services and the Committee to End Homelessness, the plan established its own Homeless Housing and Services Fund, which serves about 2,400 households each year.

Case management and client assistance

“Those who are homeless want to get back on their feet and contribute to society, but that’s difficult to do if they don’t have safe, reliable shelter,” said Dow Constantine, co-chair of the Committee to End Homelessness Governing Board.

Since a significant percentage of the county’s homeless population lives in poverty and has poor housing records — for example, debts owed to previous landlords, evictions, poor credit histories and criminal records — service providers help enroll individuals or families into housing support programs that incorporate case management and client assistance to maintain housing stability.

Graph showing Homeless Housing and Services clients by age.

“People have been able to get out of homelessness and stay out of homelessness,” Stoops told MintPress News of the housing first model. “Half of all homeless people just need a decent job or a cheap place to live. The other half need the support of social services.”

In 2009, the creation of the Landlord Liaison Project in King County facilitated coordination with landlords to make units available to homeless clients. Training is also available to inform landlords and social service providers about fair housing laws, as well as to provide clients with an understanding of budgeting, conflict and domestic violence support, and their roles and responsibilities as tenants.

Other accessible social services include job training, mental and medical health treatment and addiction counseling.

Cutting costs

More than half of homeless single adults in the United States struggle with mental illness, substance abuse and other chronic health issues. Issues like these have resulted in these adults repeatedly cycling through homeless shelters, emergency room visits, psychiatric hospitals and jails.

New York’s Common Ground says providing housing support to a homeless individual costs less than it does to maintain his or her life on the street. The cost of maintaining one mentally ill homeless person in New York City is $56,350, according to the program’s estimates, but it would cost just $24,190 to provide that person with housing and support services.

As Common Ground has found with its Street to Home program and as King County has found with its housing first model, homeless individuals and families can become stable, independent and productive members of their communities when they have access to permanent housing and support services.

Though these programs are both recording success and reducing the costs associated with homelessness, a greater national initiative and more funding are both still needed.

“The downside of the housing first model is that it’s not a fully implemented program because there’s not enough money that’s been appropriated by Congress,” said Stoops.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2013 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, Washington state was one of the top five states with the greatest drop in homelessness from 2007-2013. Homelessness dropped by 24 percent in Washington state in the five-year period. Though New York remains among the states with the lowest rates of homelessness, it saw one of the greatest increases in homelessness in 2007-2013.

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/housing-first-different-approach-end-homelessness/189505/feed/1Environmentalist Kicked Out Of Chevron-Sponsored Eventhttps://www.mintpressnews.com/amazon-watch-kicked-chevron-sponsored-event/189179/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/amazon-watch-kicked-chevron-sponsored-event/189179/#commentsFri, 18 Apr 2014 10:00:41 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=189179After organizers of a Chevron-sponsored economic development summit learned of a paying attendee’s association with an environmental watchdog, he was forcibly ejected from the event.

On Wednesday, Paul Paz y Miño was standing at the back of the ballroom of the Marriott Convention Center during the Economic Development Summit for Energy and Sustainability in Oakland, Calif., when he was approached by a woman.

The woman asked Paz y Miño, the online and operations director for the environmental watchdog organization Amazon Watch, about a stack of papers he had.

When it was revealed that he was holding about 40 flyers regarding Chevron’s controversial environmental actions and its Richmond, Calif., community news website, Richmond Standard, three security guards arrived to physically remove Paz y Miño from the summit.

Getting kicked out of the event may have surprised Paz y Miño if oil and energy giant Chevron had not been the event’s presenting sponsor.

Since 2002, Amazon Watch has campaigned against Texaco, which merged with Chevron in 2001, against the drilling of oil in the Amazon region of Ecuador and the environmental damages it has caused to the natural ecosystems and indigenous people there.

Based in Oakland, Calif., Amazon Watch also leads national and statewide efforts to confront Chevron’s lack of regard and safety for its other hazardous incidents, including a gas well explosion in Bobtown, Penn., in February and a 2012 fire at its refinery in Richmond that sent 15,000 people to hospitals due to respiratory distress.

“Chevron cannot respond on the facts of what they did in Ecuador,” Paz y Miño told MintPress News. “And so their tactic, admittedly, is to vilify and attack anyone who is critical, and Amazon Watch is at the top of that list.”

“Amazon Watch is not welcome”

Launched in January, the Richmond Standard says it aims to “provide Richmond residents with important information about what’s going on in the community, and to provide a voice for Chevron Richmond on civic issues.”

However, the Standard has met with skepticism over its true intentions from Richmond residents and the media, who see the newspaper as little more than promotional material for the company.

The flyers Paz y Miño had at the summit featured the Standard’s masthead above an article featuring the San Francisco Chronicle saying, “The idea of the nation’s second-largest oil company funding a local news site harkens back to an era of journalism when business magnates often owned newspapers to promote their personal financial or political agendas.”

Per the woman’s request — a request, she later clarified to Paz y Miño, she made out of curiosity — Paz y Miño gave her a flyer. It was shortly after this interaction that he was approached by a security guard.

According to Paz y Miño, upon noticing his papers, the guard said, “Sir, if you have information, you need to talk to the conference organizers about setting up a table on the side to pass information out.”

Paz y Miño said he explained to the guard he was not voluntarily passing out the papers.

“I’m well aware of the restrictions of presenting and giving information, and I knew they weren’t going to want me to be doing that at the conference,” Paz y Miño said.

Paz y Miño was planning to pass the information out to interested individuals and businesses after the conference.

“My plan was to be there, listen to what they have to say, interact with the people at the conference,” he said. “Supposedly, these are businesses in Oakland that are concerned with green and sustainable energy. I thought they would be interested in the information, certainly about Chevron and the environmental issues that [Amazon Watch raises].”

Paz y Miño said the guard left, but then returned to tell Paz y Miño that the conference organizers wanted to speak to him. After telling the organizers the name of the environmental group he was representing, they told him, “Amazon Watch is not welcome, you will have to leave.”

The activist refused to leave, as he had paid to attend the public conference, prompting security to “physically and forcefully” remove him.

The mayor’s office received no response when it called the summit’s host, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce (OMCC), seeking permission for Paz y Miño to return.

Preemptive measures?

The following day, a statement and apology released by Dan Quigley, the interim president of the OMCC, said Paz y Miño was asked to leave out of concerns that he would have been disruptive.

“We’re sorry to have asked a paying attendee to leave, and have reimbursed the cost of his ticket. Previous actions by Amazon Watch in other venues and their social-media messaging in advance of our conference raised our concern that this attendee (an employee of Amazon Watch) intended to be disruptive. We regret any misunderstanding on our part,“ the statement said.

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/amazon-watch-kicked-chevron-sponsored-event/189179/feed/5Silent Howls: The Euthanization Of Shelter Dogshttps://www.mintpressnews.com/silent-howls-euthanization-shelter-dogs/189003/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/silent-howls-euthanization-shelter-dogs/189003/#respondWed, 16 Apr 2014 10:00:20 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=189003Euthanasia is an unfortunate reality for shelter dogs that don’t get adopted, but spaying and neutering could go a long way in changing this.

High numbers of abandoned dogs are roaming the streets of Detroit, Michigan leaving city officials overwhelmed at the prospect of handling an issue that raises both animal rights and safety concerns. (Photo/Wim Mulder via Flickr)

For many animal lovers, a pet is a member of the family. The most beloved house pet for one-third of American families is man’s furry, four-legged friend: the dog.

Though apparently adored by Americans, dogs in shelters often exceed demand. According to the Humane Society of the United States, 6 million to 8 million dogs and cats enter shelters each year, but only about 30 percent of house pets are adopted from shelters or animal rescue centers.

Misconceptions about shelter dogs may be why the majority of people choose to get their tail-wagging companions from pet stores, individual and specialty breeders, or personal acquaintances. Shelter dogs have a reputation of being misbehaved, sickly and untrainable, as well as a breed “wildcard,” and all of these factors can be a deterrent for potential adopters. While shelters are trying to disprove this stigma and take care of stray animals as best as they can, the fate of the animals that don’t get picked remains a serious problem at hand — and paw.

Due to low adoption rates, the American Humane Association states that 56 percent of sheltered dogs are euthanized. With limited space and resources available to the animals, euthanization has become the all too common and necessary reality for millions of homeless pets.

Too many woofs, not enough roofs

For many shelters, euthanasia is the last option for a homeless dog.

If attendants are able, the first thing they do when a stray is brought in is try to determine if the animal has an owner. Many of the dogs at shelters once had a home, but they’ve either been returned by the owner or abandoned.

“The bigger issue is the owners, not the dogs in the shelters,” said Andrea Cole, an animal care attendant at Crossroads Animal Shelter in Buffalo, Minn. “People are uneducated when they get these animals and they’re the ones surrendering them or turning them loose.”

Only 30 percent of sheltered dogs get reclaimed by their owners. Besides an identification tag or a collar, Cole says there are other signs a dog once had a home.

“We don’t just get wild, crazy dogs that have no history whatsoever,” Cole told MintPress News. “We get dogs that are already neutered or already spayed, or they’re four years old and they already know how to sit, shake, lie down, and do all that good stuff.”

Spaying and neutering are often encouraged. These procedures not only provide long-term health benefits for dogs, like cancer prevention, but they also help fight overpopulation. The costs, however, vary by location and by the weight of the dog. Neutering at a Humane Society branch or low-cost clinics can range from $45 to $135, while spaying costs between $50 to $175. Some animal hospitals may even charge up to $200 or $300.

“People usually call one clinic and give up at that,” said Cole, who believes it’s best to reach out to multiple clinics, since estimates are free. “You’ve got to get educated and figure out where your money can be spent wisely.”

Stressing the importance of spaying and neutering, Crossroads won’t hire an employee whose own pets are not spayed or neutered and it will not adopt to families who have unaltered pets at home.

The barking truth

Back in 1999, the Humane Society established guidelines for animal shelters on selecting animals for euthanasia.

“Although euthanasia decisions should never be completely without subjective opinions and the ability to make choices based on individual animals, written guidelines provide some parameters for employees to work within,” the guidelines state.

These parameters include specific factors such as age, behavior and health.

For selection at Crossroads, Cole said a dog’s biting tendencies are a major behavioral factor. Another factor in selecting an animal for euthanasia, Cole said, is “if they have some sort of medical condition that is just too far gone we cannot handle, that we cannot take care of as far as their quality of life.”

When caring for strays, many facilities have a stable holding period that gives owners a chance to be located or for pets to be claimed. This period varies among shelters and states.

“We always hope an owner will come forward,” Cole said.

According to the Humane Society, euthanasia may be warranted once a shelter is no longer able to humanely house the animal, provide treatment to those who are sick, or achieve access to a credible rescue or foster home.

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/silent-howls-euthanization-shelter-dogs/189003/feed/0Endangered Wild Cats Harmfully Bred In Zoos For Profit, Not Protectionhttps://www.mintpressnews.com/endangered-wild-cats-harmfully-bred-in-zoos-for-profit-not-protection/188482/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/endangered-wild-cats-harmfully-bred-in-zoos-for-profit-not-protection/188482/#commentsWed, 09 Apr 2014 10:00:09 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=188482Inbreeding practices of rare white tigers and white lions have led to birth defects and abnormalities, but is their popularity in zoos more important than their conservation?

A white tigress Sameera walks in an enclosure followed by her six-month-old tiger cubs at Nehru Zoological Park in Hyderabad, India, Saturday, March 29, 2014. (AP/Mahesh Kumar A.)

Although the wild cats on display in zoos seem to be the kings and queens of their exhibits, the reality of their lives in captivity is far from royal.

Illegal poaching, trophy hunting, retaliative persecution and habitat loss subjects wildlife species to extinction or captivity, and has brought populations of wild cats in the world to staggering lows.

Many zoos have made efforts to save wild cats and stimulate procreation, but the threat is the largest for the white tiger and the white lion species. Despite the educational goals and hopeful life-saving conditions of zoos, containment of these white cats has become inhumane and harmful due to selective inbreeding for the sake of profit, not protection.

In over a century, 97 percent of all tigers have been lost, leaving as few as 3,200 in the wild today, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) states. Resources to safeguard and protect the habitats of tigers are limited, and poaching remains pervasive even within countries that have protection laws, such Cambodia, China, Laos and Vietnam. In Central and West Africa, lions are now classified as an endangered species and are extinct in 26 countries, according to wild cat conservation group Panthera.

Exhibitors and breeders favor white tigers and lions because they are so rare. A subspecies of the orange Bengal tiger, the white tiger’s fur coat is the result of a recessive gene that must be carried by both parents. The Global White Lion Protection Trust states the fur of white lions is due to a genetic marker that has not even been identified yet.

Though beautiful, their bright coats make it difficult to camouflage themselves from animal predators and poachers in the wild, further exacerbating their struggle for survival.

At zoos, their white coats draw visitors and bring in money. To ensure the presence of African and Asian white cat exhibits, many zoos actively inbreed white lions and white tigers. However, this inbreeding has resulted in genetic deformities among offspring in both species.

Skeletal deformities, digestive complications, neurological conditions and immune system deficiencies are likely to occur in inbred white lion offspring, while inbred white tigers are found to develop cleft palettes, strabismus, scoliosis of the spine, mental impairments and dysfunction around the trachea.

Despite these abnormalities, according to the nonprofit The Wildcat Sanctuary, zoos continue to inbreed for financial gain rather than for the species’ survival. Out of a litter of cubs, certain offspring are selected to remain in the zoo, while nearly half of those born with deformities or without a pure, white coat are often euthanized or neglected.

In June 2011, the American Zoological Association finalized their ban on breeding captive white cats for their member zoos. Its policy states:

“Breeding practices that increase the physical expression of single rare alleles (i.e., rare genetic traits) through intentional inbreeding, for example intentional breeding to achieve rare color-morphs such as white tigers, deer, and alligators, has been clearly linked with various abnormal, debilitating, and, at times, lethal, external and internal conditions and characteristics … Therefore such practices are not in adherence with AZA’s Board-approved Policy on the Presentation of Animals.”

When it comes to the conservation of the white wild cat species, the association holds that captive species should be managed with possible re-introduction in mind, not intentionally kept so the zoo can profit.

In this April 14, 2006, file photo, a homeless woman seeks shelter under construction scaffolding in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles. (AP/Damian Dovarganes)

The old proverb says that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure, but in one city in the San Francisco Bay Area, many people’s illegal trash has become over a dozen mini shelters for the homeless.

Nearly half of the 6,215 homeless people in Alameda County reside in Oakland, where many wander the streets following incarceration, hospitalization or foster care. Many homeless individuals create their own shelters out of materials they find in the city’s abundant piles of scattered trash, often illegally dumped at night by local residents.

Illegal dumping, or “midnight dumping,” is the improper disposal of waste, which is typically non-hazardous, at any location other than a permitted landfill or facility. In 2012, employees with the Oakland Public Works Agency picked up 1,624 tons of junk and received 11,500 trash cleanup calls.

Cracked 2x4s, broken furniture, bricks and discarded household drywall may seem like an eyesore that would spur action from residents, but the disposed trash usually goes overlooked, much like the homeless population who surround it.

However, with a little curiosity and creativity, one West Oakland man came up with a way to bring both of these issues to people’s attention.

A few years ago, Greg Kloehn used his artistic and construction abilities to build a tiny home out of the same materials he saw the homeless people in his neighborhood scavenging.

“Stuff people just throw away on the street can give someone a viable home,” Kloehn said, but even when the trash is utilized by the homeless, most items are swept away by municipal workers under Oakland’s public safety laws.

With a rotating team of volunteers, Kloehn constructs the compact abodes on wheels in his studio for under $100 each. His micro homes are strong and watertight, and he paints them in friendly colors, such as yellow, light blue and pink.

In 2013, an estimated 610,000 people were homeless on a given night, and 35 percent of the total were unsheltered, according to a report by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Kloehn says his work is not a permanent solution. In the wake of growing concern for people living in poverty and the environment, though, it is being seen as a temporary fix and a humane gesture to keep people safe while also recycling waste.

The worry with mass illegal dumping is that the garbage will end up in creeks and waterways and decrease property values. Despite Oakland’s many attempts to stop the dumping, including the City Council’s recent move to classify the act as a misdemeanor, city officials are realizing the problem can’t be solved by punishment alone.

Kristine Shaff, an Oakland Public Works Agency spokeswoman, said the dumping is “not an individual issue, it’s not a criminal issue – it’s a social issue.”

Viewed through a social lens, perhaps the efforts of Kloehn, as well as other environmental tiny house movements, can turn the world’s tons of waste into a solution to two very worrying issues.

Today’s casinos of flashing lights and slot machines in smoke-filled rooms attract high rollers and bad losers. Many see casinos as a lucrative business for Native American reservations — but does this myth of money-making match reality?

Twenty-five percent of the U.S. population aged 21 and over visited a casino and participated in gambling in 2010. In that year alone, U.S. casinos enjoyed revenues of $34.6 billion, according to the American Gaming Association.

It’s a common assumption that the gaming industry is a cash cow for Native Americans, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that as part of tribal sovereignty, state tax and regulatory laws do not necessarily apply to Native Americans living on reservations.

Tribal sovereignty refers to tribes’ right to govern themselves, define their own membership, manage property, and regulate tribal business and relations while recognizing a government-to-government relationship with states and the federal government. But despite tribes’ independence and exemptions, the Native American population as a whole comprises the minority living with the largest disparities in health, education and income in the United States.

The unemployment rate on some reservations can reach as high as 75 percent, with nearly 10 percent of all Native families being homeless. For some of those families who do have homes, they may lack electricity or running water, Liberation news reports.

Gaming has helped raise tribal communities out of poverty by providing funds for housing, schools, health care and education, as well as stable jobs for community members, but according to the Native American Rights Fund, of the estimated 560 federally recognized American Indian nations, only 224 are involved in gaming. Tribes who are geographically located on rural, unpopulated land may never take part in the industry, while those who reside near major urban areas benefit the most from gaming operations.

Can tribal sovereignty exist within a city?

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa not only has a casino on its reservation in northern Minnesota, but one that is located 20 miles to the east in downtown Duluth. With the “Fond-du-Luth” casino establishment located outside of the reservation, issues pertaining to tribal sovereignty and gaming revenues are currently being disputed by city leaders.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that because Fond-du-Luth is outside the reservation, a 1994 agreement was enacted, stating that the casino would pay a 19 percent “rent” of its gross income for 25 years and an unspecified rate for the following 25 years to the city in exchange for services. This provided Duluth with around $6 million income annually from the Fond du Lac band, but in 2009, the band stopped paying.

Karen Diver, chairwoman of the Fond du Lac band, said payments were halted when it began questioning the legality of the agreement. After asking the National Indian Gaming Commission to review the 1994 consent agreement, it found the agreement violated the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires tribes to have “sole proprietary interest” for tribal casinos.

The band negotiated a payment-per-services model, covering services like law enforcement and fire protection, but a U.S. District Court judge ruled this month that $10.4 million is owed from the Fond du Lac band’s halted payments from 2009 to 2011, which the band might be able to appeal.

The issues that arose in Duluth were similar to those when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) was onboard for a plan to build casinos under the Seneca Nation in Rochester and other areas upstate.

Initially, like Fond-du-Luth, there was discussion of the state government receiving a negotiated piece of the casino’s gross intake, but the sovereignty issue again posed question.

“How could you put a sovereign nation in the middle of your downtown?” said Lovely Warren, Rochester city council president.

Steve Siegel, formerly of the College of Hospitality and Tourism Management at Niagara University, told Rochester City Newspaper that most of the time, when a tax-exempt casino is placed on what is claimed to be sovereign land within an urban setting, all of the gain goes to the casino complex.

“Local businesses are devastated because they can’t compete with this massive nontaxable entity,” Siegel said.

Native Americans are still Americans

Although the casino institutions themselves are not federally taxed, in 2006 the IRS issued a bulletin stating that individual Native Americans, especially those living outside of a reservation, are still subject to federal income tax every year.

More than seven in ten Native Americans and Alaska Natives now live in metropolitan areas, and 27 percent live in poverty, according to the Census Bureau.

The bulletin states:

“While there are numerous valid treaties between various Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments and the United States government, some of which may contain language providing for narrowly defined tax exemptions, these treaties have limited application to specific tribes … Taxpayers who are affected by such treaty language must be a member of a particular tribe having a treaty and must cite that specific treaty in claiming any exemption. There is no general treaty that is applicable to all Native Americans.”

Even so, many Native American families subject to treaties are still not exempt from taxes. The IGRA has provisions that permit tribes to make per-capita distributions from gaming activities to tribe members and the community. But according to the bulletin, “Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, any distribution of casino gaming proceeds to individual tribe members is also subject to federal income tax.”

Essentially, Native Americans are living in a nation where the majority of its population is struggling to make ends meet. They face taxes and economic strife while trying to support their families. Some may sit more comfortably than others, but the late-night hours from visitors at the slot machines or blackjack tables don’t quite live up to the dream.

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-myth-of-the-casino-cash-cow-for-native-americans/171092/feed/2A Whistleblower, A 16-Year-Old Girl, A President: And The Prize Goes To…https://www.mintpressnews.com/2013-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/168530/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/2013-nobel-peace-prize-nominees/168530/#commentsMon, 09 Sep 2013 10:00:19 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=168530A look at three leading contenders for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Supporters of Army Pfc. Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning hold up banners as they protest outside of the gates at Fort Meade, Md., Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2013, before a sentencing hearing at Manning’s court martial. Manning is one of many nominees who face the often-disputed process leading to the next Nobel Peace Prize winner. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

“Peace is its own reward” are the words of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most resounding symbols of peace, human rights and social justice. Every year the efforts of extraordinary individuals who changed the world are acknowledged. Since 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has promoted the virtues of peace and the selfless acts of individuals for the good of mankind.

So, it may come as a surprise to learn that Gandhi himself never received the Peace Prize.

Since it was first awarded, critics have challenged whether each nominee and laureate has rightfully met Alfred Nobel’s principles of national fraternity, abolition of warfare and peace promotion.

Of the 259 Nobel Peace Prize nominees this year, over 100,000 petition signatures supported the candidacy of U.S. soldier Chelsea (formerly known as Bradley) Manning for the release of controversial government files, diplomatic cables and brutal combat videos to WikiLeaks. But despite public applause for Manning’s military exposure of war crimes, she is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence over crimes of espionage, theft and fraud — which exposed certain non-peaceful actions of President Obama, who happens to be the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

“On the world stage, acknowledging Manning’s acts could prevent a monopoly on cultivated ignorance,” said Merrill Aldigheiri, creator of a prominent Facebook page supporting advocating for Mannings nomination. “For the USA, knowing that a Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Obama, is jailing a new winner of this same prestigious medal would have to get people thinking. We need to stimulate critical thinking.”

This year brings the highest number of candidates ever, surpassing the previous record of 241 candidates in 2011. The list includes Myanmar President Thein Sein and the youngest-ever nominee, 16-year-old Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani girl shot in her head and neck by the Taliban while advocating for education and women’s rights.

Each year the committee and the world opinion struggle to find an ideal on how individuals should be selected that is free from the influences of power and national authority. But as stated in Nobel’s will, the acts of the deserving medalist must have in their actions “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.”

Candidates, courage and controversy

Many human rights groups feel Manning is a model for justice, both in terms of gender expression and equality as well as exposing government lies.

“Every president who wants to launch another war can’t abide whistleblowers,” said Norman Solomon, RootsAction co-founder. “They might interfere with the careful omissions, distortions and outright lies of war propaganda, which requires that truth be held in a kind of preventative detention.”

Solomon presented five thousand pages of Manning supporter’s signatures to the committee in Oslo, Norway. Although the petition was for Manning, her win could be seen as a vindication for fellow whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, who was a potential nominee this year, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a 2011 nominee.

“I think many people in Norway have some sympathy for the actions of Bradley Manning, and especially Edward Snowden,” said Asle Sveen, author of various Nobel Peace Prize texts and former Norwegian Nobel Institute Research Fellow. “However, it is highly unlikely that Manning, Snowden or Assange will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The members of the Nobel Committee are almost all former politicians who view the alliance and close ties between the USA and Norway as crucial for Norwegian security.”

In the eyes of some army veterans, Manning signed a contract to serve and protect the U.S. and broke it, while claiming the leaks of over 700,000 documents were “sloppy” and “foolish,” marking Manning as a traitor. Critics allege the leaks put ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in danger after classified material was released in one massive document dump.

When the Taliban located Malala Yousafzai, she was on her school bus in Pakistan’s Swat Valley. The Taliban opened fired on her and shot her in head and neck. Her crime was for advocating that girls receive an education — but perhaps more to the point for criticising the militant group in her online diary. Appearing originally on BBC Urdu, Yousafzai wrote under a pen name accusing the Taliban’s of imposing strict prohibitions on girls from attending schools in Pakistan’s northwestern Swat district.

On Jan. 3, 2009, she wrote

“I am afraid. I had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taleban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid going to school because the Taleban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools.”

Pakistan ranks as the country with the second-most children not in school, with 23 percent of girls aged 3 to 16 not receiving education, according to the National Status Education Report for Pakistan last year. The majority of schools in the country are government institutions, but of those schools, 54 percent are boys-only, 30 percent are coeducation while 16 percent are girls-only, leaving a gap between the education of girls and boys in Pakistan.

Yousafzai was 11 years old when she started spreading her message in Pakistan, encouraging people to stand up against the Taliban in spite of the militia’s raids on homes for books and school materials. When they discovered her identity, the Taliban attacked Yousafzai last October, leaving her in intensive care at a Pakistani hospital until she was transferred to care in the U.K, where she now lives.

After a difficult recovery, Yousafzai continued her activism. In an address to the United Nations, she said, “The terrorists thought that they would change our aims and stop our ambitions but nothing changed in my life except this: Weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, power and courage was born.”

Even a letter written to Yousafzai from a senior Taliban commander doesn’t seem to change her stance either. Rather than criticizing her education efforts, the note said, “The Taliban believe you were intentionally writing against them and running a smear campaign to malign their effort to establish an Islamic system in Swat Valley, and your writings were provocative.”

According to Sveen, Yousafzai’s presentation and work in the U.N. “has increased her candidacy for the Peace Prize, despite her young age. She has obviously grown into a role model for young people — here in Norway especially for immigrant girls from Muslim countries.”

An online petition for Yousafzai helped push her nomination by the Canadian Federal Party, which was encouraged by Canada-born Pakistani writer and activist Tarek Fatah. Having already received awards including Pakistan’s first National Youth Peace Prize, there is worry that this spotlight might make her a bigger target for groups affiliated with the Taliban and that the award, despite her worthiness, may be too burdensome for a young girl.

Some question the nomination of Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) President Thein Sein. Many recognize the nation as a whole has improved relations with the international community since Sein took power in 2011. His reforms include scaling back repressive laws, releasing thousands of political prisoners and making steps to diminish internal conflicts.

But with Sein’s background in the country’s military junta, he is still viewed as a consort with militia leaders who broke down democratic uprisings. Today Myanmar;s government is accused of taking part in incitement against local Muslims, including allegedly providing fanatic Buddhists with petrol containers to torch homes of Muslim villagers in June, adding to the thousands seeking refuge in camps after riots in March resulted in dozens of deaths as Buddhists burned Muslim homes, mosques and schools.

Kristian Berg Harpviken, head of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo (PRIO) placed Sein on his shortlist along with five other Nobel Peace Prize recipients. Sein is the fifth selection of the group for “spearheading a gradually evolving peace process in the country,” including reconciliation with the junta opposition National League for Democracy, despite his military ties.

According to PRIO, “the committee has often insisted that the prize is not to be for saints only, and has in recent years been particularly eager that it makes a difference in processes unfolding, even if that may carry high risk.”

Is this a new shift away from initial aims of Alfred Nobel? In such a large nomination pool, are individual’s most recent activities toward peace, rights and reconciliation more important than widespread opposition and a violent past?

The nominations unfold

The current members of the 2012-2014 Norwegian Nobel Committee are Thorbjørn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, Ågot Valle, Gunnar Stålsett and Berit Reiss — Andersen, the first four also having served the 2009-2011 term.

When deliberation of nominees takes place, Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute and Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee Awards Prize said reports from academic and international experts are what lead up to the final decision announced in October.

For petitions like the one for Manning’s nomination, it is “perfectly legitimate to submit signatures of support for candidates of the Nobel Peace Prize. This happens every year and some of these campaigns can be really comprehensive,” Lundestad said.

Although Solomon collected over 100,000 signatures for Manning, Lundestad said other campaigns for peace prize nominees have had more than 200,000, with the record being 750,000 signatures for one candidate who did not get the award.

For many of Manning’s supporters, the award would mean a big comeback on Obama’s win in 2009, when he was honored the prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Then only about eight months into his presidency, some argued Obama’s record was unproven.

From the time Obama was in office ,the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan were and remain the highest since 2001. Between 20,000 and 35,000 troops were deployed through 2005-2009, but troop levels peaked at 100,000 in 2011 before decreasing to 60,000 today, according to the Brookings Institution Afghanistan Index.

CIA drone strikes in Pakistan were also highest during those years. From 2004 through 2008 there were a total of 49 strikes, but from 2009 to 2013 there have been 322 strikes documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Manning supporter Aldigheiri feels that a presidential pardon from Obama is deserved, but even if the award is honored to Manning while behind bars, she wouldn’t be the first laureate to accept it while detained.

Liu Xiaobo, who was awarded the prize in 2010, is a Chinese activist for constitutional freedoms who spent 20 years fighting for a more open and democratic China. Arrested in 2008 and sentenced to 11 years in prison for his manifesto advocating shifts toward democracy in the country, the government called him a dissident, but the Nobel committee saw him for his long and nonviolent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.

In 1991, the prize was awarded to Aung San Suu Kyi, who was under house arrest in Myanmar by the regime. A founder of the National League for Democracy opposition and inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, she nonviolently urged military leaders to leave power in the hands of a civilian government for aim of an established democratic society and free ethnic groups from oppression.

Of all the Nobel Peace Prize laureates, only 12 are women, making a case for supporters who say it’s Yousafzai’s time.

But no matter who wins the award this year, as nations and systems change and as revolutions unfold, defining the most prominent peace endeavours will be hard to judge.

“We start of course with Alfred Nobel’s will,” Lundestad said. “He mentions three criteria specifically in his will — fraternity between nations, reduction of standing armies, the holding of peace conferences — but these three criteria have to be interpreted in the light of today’s situation, and that is what the committee is trying to do the best it can.”

The Minnesota state Capitol in St. Paul, where the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security discussed the possible enableing of the open carry law in the complex. (Photo/Fibonacci Blue via Flickr)

A stirring discussion about the legal carrying of firearms hit the tip of numerous targets Wednesday at the Minnesota state capitol. Minnesota is a state where open carry is allowed with a permit, but concerns have been raised about open carry on government complex premises.

According to an analysis by Rep. Michael Paymar, DFL-St.Paul, about 13 states in the nation allow guns at their capitols.

“We are clearly in the minority,” he said to the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security and members of the public who attended the meeting, including the groups Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance and Moms Demand Action for Gunsense in America.

Minnesota’s capitol is known for it’s accessibility to the community, with various open hearings and committee discussions, field trip visits from community schools, rallies and protests, and public tours of the courtrooms and historical artwork.

But with thousands of people visiting the Capitol each year, the absence of front door and around-the-clock security was brought to attention at Wednesday’s meeting.

“There are threats that our capitol is vulnerable,” said Chair Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon, who set a tone of concern referencing the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy in Newtown, Conn. last December. She also claimed it would be advisable to look into other states’ gun legislation as it relates to their capitols for direction.

Rochelle Schrofer of Minnesota Public Safety, who is captain of Capitol Security and Executive Policy, announced new security positions being implemented for the capitol’s 140-acre property. With a $1.25 million public safety budget increase this year, enhanced precautions such as employing a full-time emergency manager, six new armed and trained troopers and additional non-licensed security personnel are in the works, intended to create full-time surveillance.

Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance members James Peterson and Rob Doar attend the Advisory Committee on Capitol Security meeting for gun legislature at the Minnesota state capitol in St. Paul on August 14, 2013. (MPN photo/Katie Lentsch)

But does increased security still mean changes to gun legislation?

The current policy for a citizen to legally enter the capitol with a firearm involves a single notification, either by email or a letter to the public safety commissioner, of intent to carry a firearm within Capitol walls. The person’s name is then put on a list by Capitol security, but the name and the one-time notification is all that is required in perpetuity, a protocol that some members of the public believe might be too simple.

Schrofer said the language of the policy “is very vague,” but it is clear the statute does not require individuals to submit proof of their permit in the notification, nor their permit number, county allocation, expiration date, photo identification or driver’s license number.

“From a law enforcement perspective there is some concern,” Schrofer said, although most individuals provide at a minimum the county, expiration date and sometimes a photocopy of their permit or driver’s license.

Bruce Gordon, Department of Public Safety director of communications, counts 832 people currently filed on the security list.

However, the list is not updated on the basis of active permits for handguns, the legal firearm to carry in the state. If a citizen had notified the commissioner and was listed in 2008, there is no obligation to follow up whether that individual has renewed his or her permit to carry or if the permit had been revoked in the last five years.

The state of Texas allows conceal and carry to citizens with a handgun license, and permits them to enter the state Capitol with a legal firearm. Upon entering the governmental complex, handgun owners must proceed through a separate security line for validation of the gun and the license.

Although carriers on governmental grounds may be authorized to do so, concerns for the possibility of gun violence from the community and even governmental employees were part of Wednesday’s discussion. According to reports by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2010, 17 percent of homicidal shootings at a workplace occurred at government facilities.

However, pro-gun supporters and permit holders claim legal gun owners should still not be the ones under the microscope, but that the discussion should be about the illegal carriers.

“It’s not about guns, it’s more about civil rights,” said James Peterson, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance member, who feels lawfully owning a gun gives individuals the right to protect themselves, their families and others when law enforcement can’t.

On the viewpoints of Paymar at the meeting, “I think his fears are affecting our safety,” Peterson said.

For Linda Winsor, Minnesota state leader for Mom’s Demand Action for Gunsence in America, the issue is about violence prevention.

“It’s up to the U.S. to protect the public,” said Winsor. While expressing disappointment in the discussion’s focus on the loose capitol carry policy, she agrees in the right to own a gun.

“There is a perfect right to own guns and there are reasons to have them in shooting ranges [and] for hunting,” she said, “But in terms of out in public, I think in our civilized society, it is under special circumstances when people should do that.”

Solon says the committee is in “exploratory mode” with the legislation, with more research needed and more discussions to be had. The additional personnel can be expected in September, with the new troopers to be initiated throughout the rest of the year. A significant part of Solon’s aim at Wednesday’s meeting was to raise issues of the threats out there and address the concerns of people on all ends of the conversation until conclusions in the state are made.

]]>https://www.mintpressnews.com/do-open-carry-laws-apply-on-government-property/167175/feed/2Open Carry Supporters Demonstrate At Starbuckshttps://www.mintpressnews.com/open-carry-supporters-demonstrate-at-starbucks-while-gun-laws-still-on-the-grind/166802/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/open-carry-supporters-demonstrate-at-starbucks-while-gun-laws-still-on-the-grind/166802/#commentsMon, 12 Aug 2013 12:47:49 +0000https://www.mintpressnews.com/?p=166802Starbucks is a company that allows customers to openly carry handguns in states that permit it.

“I Love Guns & Coffee” was the slogan for the Starbucks Appreciation Day open carry event, supported by thousands of people all over the country who visited their local Starbucks Friday.

Starbucks is a company that allows customers to openly carry handguns in states that permit it. However, anti-gun groups such as Connecticut’s Newtown Action Alliance, founded after last December’s Sandy Hook tragedy, spoke out against Starbucks’ policy and the social media gathering. Anti-gun group Mom’s Demand Action in turn also advocated the phrase “We Want Gun Sense with Our Coffee.”

An event’s Facebook page announced that “Starbucks is allowing us to lawfully carry firearms in their store. Recently, they have been the target of unjust attacks from certain groups that do not support our right to bear arms. We will thank starbucks for standing up for our right to bear arms by going there on Friday, August 9th.”

In 2010, the popular coffee chain stated its policy for gun laws and to this day it remains unchanged.

“We essentially have determined it’s best for us to comply with local statutes and communities that we serve and abide by the laws that permit open carry,” Jaime Riley, representative for Starbucks told Mint Press News.

In states where open carry is prohibited, guns are then not allowed within those Starbucks locations, but their policy has continued to be an example of public discussion and criticism surrounding gun law issues.

At a Starbucks in Plymouth, Minn., where open carry is legal with a permit, a customer who requested to remain anonymous says guns and coffee are “kind of an odd combination.”

A women with the man who also requested to remain anonymous supports open carry laws and gun ownership, but says, “I think you’d get quite an outrage if you saw a weapon, concealed or unconcealed at a coffee shop.”

The man recalled a recent visit to Chipotle when he saw someone with a gun.

“There was a guy, just a normal civilian, and he had his gun wide-open there for everyone to see and it made me very uncomfortable,” he said. “I support people owning guns, but as far as carrying them out on your day to day things, like a phone or anything else, no. It’s unnecessary.”

Of the 16 recorded mass shootings in 2012, one of them occurred at coffee shop in Seattle, Wash., a state that supports the Second Amendment with a permit, where one man opened fire and killed five people before himself, The New York Times reported.

On the issue of gun rights, Shae Roberts, a Starbucks customer accompanied by a younger girl, feels that conceal and carry is the best way because the sight of a gun in a public place is threatening.

“If there’s somebody sitting there with a gun,” she said, “Instinctively I would have my eyes on them. Because when people, kid’s especially, see somebody with a gun I think it’s scary.”

Both the man and women customers agreed that conceal and carry was a less threatening issue.

“To have it displayed,” the man said, “It puts people on edge even more so than they are now already.”

With open carry laws in Connecticut, supporters that were in Newtown Starbucks hit what is still a very sensitive note.

“Our community is still healing and we find it reprehensible that they are picking Newtown to rally,” David Ackert, a spokesman for Newtown Action Alliance told NBC. “It is disturbing to think that tomorrow night you and your children may be sitting in Starbucks when people carrying guns walk through the door.”

In the instance of a dangerous public situation, Roberts feels that if all areas were open carry, a violent person with a firearm might feel more motivated if they were confident knowing that there were no other guns present.

“It’s better if you conceal them because then they don’t know if somebody has a gun,” she said, implying that the mystery of someone else carrying a gun who could potentially defend themselves may prevent a violent person from attacking.

According to Riley, Starbucks was aware of Friday’s open carry event but did not have any part in endorsing it.

“We definitely hear feedback from both sides,” said Riley. “We are trying to remain bipartisan and just respect the local laws. We do encourage folks, customers and advocacy groups, to share their feedback with public officials because that’s where that dialogue needs to happen rather than at Starbucks.”